The crop protection market—from a pricing standpoint—has shifted from a time of extreme volatility of recent years to what’s characterized by fragile stabilization. That’s one takeaway from FBN 2026 USA Ag Chem Price Transparency Report, which also notes how tariffs have driven the floor of prices higher.
The Impact of Tariffs on 2026 Inputs
Farmers should prepare for a 4% to 6% increase in overall chemical budgets. While the wild price swings of the post-pandemic era have settled, secondary costs like labor, fuel, transportation and tariffs are pushing retail prices upward.
“As the tariffs were implemented throughout 2025, the effects were felt in different ways in different times,” says John Appel, VP of Category Management at FBN. “A big reason for that was that product inventory had to be driven down in the channel before it was felt very broadly. And I think we did see that going into 2026 now, prices are definitely up versus the same time period in 2025, and that’s largely because tariffs have become structurally part of the cost for the farmer at this point.”
Trade duties and anti-dumping penalties—particularly on imports from China and India—are the primary drivers of price spikes for 2026. Key active ingredients (AIs) most affected include 2,4-D, S-Metolachlor, Clethodim, Dicamba, and Glufosinate.
Details on The Data Sources
FBN sources its data for this report on ag chemical invoices submitted by farmers, and this year’s report included 1,372 prices from 122 insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, and adjuvants purchased June 1, 2025, and January 18, 2026 across 31 states. Participants are often incentivized with Amazon gift cards. Fifteen crop protection products had price variances of at least 25% from the lowest price to the highest price.
“Really the value is in the data. It depends on the year and the amount of participation we get, but we try to get a big enough pool where we can make a robust analysis,” Appel says. “The spread being a little bit tighter in 2026 was due to the tariff volatility. In 2025, you had at some points in the year pre-tariff prices that were being invoiced, at some points in the year post-tariff prices that were being invoiced, and so you see a very large spread in that case. And we don’t have that to the same extent this year as that.”
This is about 1,000 invoices lower than the 2024 data that was based on 2,400 invoices from 33 states. The company has done its price report for almost 10 years.
“FBN was founded based on a Moneyball approach. Crop protection prices information was really asymmetric, and so price transparency was launched in 2017 as a way to even the playing field, so to speak. We capture that data, and we anonymize it, and aggregate it, and analyze it at a top-line level. And so that allows us to share back with our farmer members what’s happening on a product-by-product basis in the market and really arm them with the knowledge they need to make informed decisions,” Appel says.
Price Variability
The report advises moving away from “just-in-time” purchasing. Instead, it suggests buying in the fall to hedge against mid-season tariff changes and logistical bottlenecks in global shipping, which are projected to be a bigger risk in 2026 than manufacturing capacity.
“As the procurement window gets tight with overseas suppliers, with global markets, this is the time that that’s really felt, and we know that prices move about 10 points on average from pre-season to in-season, so that’s quite a bit. Now, will it be 10 points on every product all the time? Probably not, but in general, buying in the fall, buying early, even now, pre-season, where you can, makes a lot of sense,” Appel says.
On a national scale:
- Clethodim 2E showed the highest variability with a 144% difference between the lowest and highest prices ($28.85 vs. $70.49).
- Generic glufosinate followed with a 130% spread.
The FBN report shows persistent price variability, and farmers in neighboring states can pay a 50% price difference on the same products.
Generics vs. Branded: Where to Save
From the report, there is a push toward generic alternatives. For example, the report claims farmers could save 30% by switching to generic 2,4-D options or 11% on glyphosate compared to branded Roundup PowerMAX 3.
This data may not fully capture the complex “net-net” pricing traditional retailers offer through bundled seed-and-chemical rebate programs, which can significantly lower the effective cost for farmers who stay within a single manufacturer’s ecosystem.
Related Article: FBN Spins Out Its Crop Protection Business, Focuses on Marketplace and Technology
